ML20138C451
Text
_; *TM -ML;?:.~X;"- W - W + M ,,_. x- _ m,
'..p.-.-...,---=
DISTRIBUTION:
SGRI r/f s/f -
CRONO
. Sawyer i All en O(C. 0 3 1981 NEMORANDUM FOR:
Paul Baker, Jr., Acting Chief Technical Planning and Information Branch Robert A. Erickson, Chief Physical Security Development Branch
- George W. !!cCorkle, Chief Physical Security Licensing Branch .
FROM:
L. J. Evans, Jr., Chief Regulatory Improvements Branch
SUBJECT:
ANALYSIS OF SAFEGUARDS NEEDS FOR TRANSPORT OF HIGH LEVEL WASTE Me are currently managing the subject program for which Battelle-Columbus is the contractor. The statement of trork for the program is enclosed (Enclosure 1). The contractor has now completed Task i of the program and has submitted a report (Enclosure 2).
De request your co::nents on the Task 1 report, and solicit your suggestions on whether (and if so, how) the report should be modified to better satisfy the objectives of the program as set forth in the scope of work.
'Je need your co:: cents before December 14; 1981 in order to make a timely response to the contractor.
L. J. Evans, Jr., Chief Regulatory Improvements Branch Division of Safeguards, INSS
Enclosures:
As stated 8512130020 851112 PDR FOIA PDR, j MILLAR84-682 4
ehl
.SGRI. . . . . .S.9 R. ... .S 9.R,{ ,g , , ,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
. p .
(, . '
t PART III CONTRACT SCHEDULE ARTICLE I - STATE. MENT OF WORK A.. BACKGROUND: The Nuclear Regulatory Commissio'n (NRC) is undertaking several related studies to prov.ide detailed analyses of safeguards needs for specific nuclear materials in production, transport or use by the commercia1 nuclear pcwer industry. These studies address specific regulatory concerns, i.e., the need to confinn or refute current safeguards needs for High Level Waste in Reposi-tories, Byproducts and Small Quantities of SNM, High Enriched Uranium -
graded physical protection measures. This ..
facil.ities, and .
Statement of Work (50W) addresses still another area of regulatory con-cern, the potential need to safeguard High Levei Waste (HLW) during trans port.
- 3. OBJECTIVE: To establish whether there is a need to safeguard shipments of !
HLW against malevolent acts and if such a need does exist, to estabitsh a technical basis for comprehensive regulations for safeguarding the ' shipments.
C. WORX REQUIRED: The contractor shall provide the personnel, facilities, and materials necessary to accomplish the work specified in this state-ment of work.
Tasks 1 and 2 shall focus on the detailed search and careful screening of existing DOE and NRC in-house reports and sponsored contract studies. The contractor shall develop and submit for NRC staff approval prior to initia-tion of these tasks, a list of the reports and studies to be reviewed.
For each task the contractor.shal.Tiirepare and submit an interim report sumarizing findings and conclusion's.
Task 1 - The contractor shall review and screen recycle studies and pro-cesses to determine the types and amounts of HLH generated and the various I
waste handlino technicues that might be appifed to each (e.g., vitrification. >
calcination,etc.). ,In addition, the contractor shall consider other L
possible operation's (e.g., decontamination, decommissioning, etc.) in the nuclear fuei cycle that would generate waste products having high radio-activity '(comparable to HLW) which might need to be transported from fixed -
sites for disposal . .
l Task 2 - The contractor shall review and screen available and ongoing ship-i ment cask design and cask utilization studies on transport of HLW or other
- waste products of high specific radioactivity to characterize the type.
L capacity, and major design features of each cask, the applicability to the 4 various transport modes, the projected type, form, and amount of material per cask: and per ' shipment, a nd pertinent. conditions of shipment affecting ,
use of these cask designs.
Task 3 - The contractor shall atilize the results of Tasks'1 and 2 to evalu-ate and determine which types of waste material, if dispersed malevolently, vcuid produce consequences of sufficient severf ty 'to public henith and '
safety as. to untrant consideraticn of safeguards regulations and measures..
---o- -,.r n--,e,~,., ---,-.ww-r,r,-,e se e ,, m...m--.- we - - - , --,w-, ,,,u-e--* - - - ,
=. .. . . . - . . - .
-. _ ~,. -_ - . - . - - - - . , _ = - - - - - ,
The desired products to be submitted in a repo-t to URC are twofold. First,
- ne coatractor will prepare a rank orcering of the waste tyoes in tarms of the relative potential consequences to Duclic health anc safety associ-ated with sabotage during transport operations. The contractor shall dc:;urent g the factors and rationale supporting these conclusions. Second, th; gontractor will prepare a plan whjch outlines the approach for com-pletion of subsequent tasks, the impact of findings from related imSS sponsored projects (such as the Cask Vulnerability Study) on tnis effort, data needs and gaps, if any. The plan will include recommendations on which of the HLW types defined in Task 1 and ranked-in Task 3 warrant detailed consequence evaluation in light of their potential for adversely affecting public health and safety.
D. OPTION TO EXTEND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE AND STATEMENT OF WORK This contract shall be extended, at the unilateral option of the Government, by the Contracting Officer's giving written notice of extension to the Contractor within the period of performance specified in this contract, provided that the Contracting Officer shall have given preliminary notice of,the Government's intention to extend at least fifteen (15) days before the contract is to expire.
(Such a preliminary notice will not be deemed to commit the Government to extention.) The total duration of this contract including the exercise of the option stated under this Article shall not exceed 32 months. Should the Government exercise the o'ption. hereunder, all contractual terms and conditions shall apply during the option period.
Further, the Contractor agrees that perfomance under said extension shall be accomplished within the following cost and fixed fee:
Ootion to include Tasks 4 and 5 of the Contractor's orocosal submitted in resconse to RFP No. RS-NMS-81-030
- 1. Period of Performance:
- 2. Estimated Cost: -
- 3. Fixed Fee:
- To be incorporated into any resultant contract.
Upon receipt of the Task 3 report above,' NRC shall rdview the results of Task 1, 2, and. 3, to detemine if the contract shall be teminated at that time or continued through completion of Tasks 4 and 5 below. NRC shall inform the contractor of the results of this. review within 30 days af ter receipt of the report. Tne contractor shall not initiate any work on Tasks 4 or 5 until receipt of appropriate contract modification from the NRC
,i contracting o fficer. The NRC contracting officer shall issue i f appropriate, a contract modification within 60 days after receipt of the Task 3 report.
9 i
.5
}
- 3
~ 72 ?.L % m .- - _
m .
~ X . .~- ..L = ; :. ..
. - - - =- .7 4
~~~
- ~ ^ TASK ONE REPORT on VOLUMES AND CHARACTER STICS OF HIGHLY RADI0 ACTIVE . .
WASTES TO BE SHIPPED IN THE FUTURE
- a _s. .
l . .
to . ..-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f (ContractNo.NRC-02-81-030) -.
~
November,1981 i
by BATTELLE Columbus Laboratories
-505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency theFeof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third-party would not infringe privately owned rights.
j ']""13P""f.__22;f """= ~M rmmit r -~-= -
~w
~
.. TASK ONE REPORT ,
on VOLUMES AND CHARACTERISTICS Of HIGHLY RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES TO BE SHIPPED IN THE FUTURE 1.0~ INTRCDUC' TION The oI)jective of this project is to provide information to assist the NRC in determinidg wh5Er there is a need to safeguard shipments of highly radioactive-wastes to or'from licensed facilities. If such a need does exist, the project will provide a technical basis for compre'hensive regulations for safeguarding theIshipmen'ts.
The f4rst task on this project was to review the literature to identify realistic projections of the volumes of highly radioactive wastes in-future shipments afid to characterize the relevant physical properties of
~ ~
~
these wastes. Subsequent tasks will provide information on the equipment and methods used for shipping the wastes and the consequences to public health and safety resulting from malevolent dispersion of different types of highly radioactive wastes. This interim report presents t.he results from Task 1.
- 2.0' BASIS FOR DATA SELECTION The quantity and types of highly radioactive commercial wastes which will be transported by rail and highway carriers in the future will be dependent on the growth of the~ commercial nuclear power industry ~and the~
fuel cycle (s) that will be employed. An evaluation of projections made during th'e mid-1970's show that neither the growth nor the fuel cycle can be predicted with certainty.
The nuclear power industry has been influenced by chan~ging govern-mental policies which will affect its stability for several decades. In 1974, 55 nuclear reactors were operating and 160 additional plants were under j construction or ordered. It was generally believed that commercial repro-cessing of spent fuel would occur during the decade and that light water l
n.u m4yq7G:y.Q%)RG4i:r~ r~6MiGwiire m r W y R.- .._ -
) fFlpt9lW
_ 2 reactors would be supplemented by the fast breeder reactor by the turn of the century. The Carter Administration's policy of nuclear power as a last resort, indefinite . deferral of reprocessing, and no fast breeder, along with unfav,orable economics for power plant construction, has caused a decline in the growth of the industry. Since 1974, onl'y 17 new plants have been ordered and 62 plants on order have been cancelled. No new plants have been ordered since 1978. -
In October,' T981T-the-Reagan ' Administration announced a policy (a)
~
of encouraging increased use of--nuclear power, proceeding with the demon-stration of breeder t.echnology, and. lifting the ban on' commercial fuel repro-
~ ~
cessing. The effect,~ or rate of change resulting from this n'ew' policy is uncertain.. . _ , . . . _
Ibe approach used in this study was to define the most probable comercial fuel cycle-and nuclear power generating capacity -to be -in operation in the neaVfuture7 The waste streams from this fuel cycle were character-ized and the volumes of highly radioactive wastes to be shipped were esti-mated by ' data from the literature. In addition, wastes from other potential fuel cycles were characterized to allow a comparison of the need for safe-guarding a variety of potential shipments.
2.1 Waste Volume The DOE (and its pre.decessors) periodically prepares projections of the growth of the commercial nuclear power capacity based on extrapolation of trends in operation, construction, and planning. In 1976, a " moderately low" growth rate projection (D) showed an expected installed nuclear capacity
" in 1980 of 76 GW(e),-in 1990 of 340 GW(e), and in 2000 of 800 GW(e). The most recent DOE projection (c) showed an installed capacity in 1980 of 53.8 GW(e)andpredicted137.5GW(e)in1990and179.7GW(e)in2000.. The NRC predicts (d)amaximumof169.1GW(e)in2000,
~ ~
a) Ref. 1 b) Ref. 2, Table 3.1 c) Ref. 3, Table 2.1 d) Ref. 4, p D-21.
y n- = . = - - ~- -- - -- - - - -
- 3 Although the great change in the forecasts over a period of 5 years shows the uncertainty of the forecasts, the most recent forecast is the most reliable information available and is used as the basis for waste volume projections in this report. This forecast of nuclear capacity is based upon reactors currently operating, under construction, or scheduled [162 reactors, 153.3 GW(e)], plus uncommitted reactors corresponding to the 1980
. T.
mid-growth extrapolation to the end of year 2000. The nominal 180 MW(e) capacity in the.yearTODD-is used as the basis for waste volume estimates in this study. , _ _
2.2 Fuel Cycle -
- a. s- -
A]l of the 1.62 commercial reactors are !WR's except for one HTGR.
The wastes from the Jew privately owned research reactors are excluded as being insigrlifica'nt~in volume and hazard. The higher power testing and experimental reactors are noncommercial (DOE owned and operated) and their wastes ar'e also excluded. Any LMFBR's to operate during this century will also be noncommercial. Some consideration is given to the difference between LMFBR waste and LWR waste. .
The most credible fuel cycle by the year 2000 will be an LWR fuel cycle. There is some potential for fuel reprocessing to begin before 2000.
The AGNS reprocessing plant at Barnwell, S. C., is largely completed and has undergone some cold testing. . Construction on the plant was halted prior to adding three necessary facilities: a HLW solidification facility, a TRU waste facility, and a facility for conversion of liquid plutonium nitrate to.
the solid oxide. The plant is unlicensed. With the current poor economic climate and the extended periods required for construction and licensing, it is unlikely that the AGNS plant will be in commercial operation during this century. Other proposed plants will be later still. Thus,.the most likely fuel cycle by the year 2000 is a continuation of the present uranium-onlycyclewithspent,fuelstorage. However, since it is the present nuclear energy policy to ISplement commercial reprocessing, this study also assumed that fuel will be reprocessed .and that wastes from reprocessing facilities will be transported.
~
4 2.3 Waste Streams High-Level Waste , ~ - - _
- iy definition, high-level waste is the waste from the first stage
-separation in reprocessing spent fuel. It is generated as a liquid and is converted to a solid. Spent fuel is presently defined as high level waste also. All other wasterare 4eficed a.slow-level wastes. ,
With reproc,essing, there may be uranium and plutonium recycled for LWR fuel (U-Pu recycle'), there may be uranium recycled to LWR fuel and plutonium stored f6r future' fBR's or. uranium recycled to LWR fuel and plutonium discarded irLNLW. The waste streams from the reprocessing plant would be the.same for the first two options for the first recycle but would change.for the first option ~ with additional recycles. In the third option (which is u'nlikely t5 be used) the health effects resulting from the dispersion of plutonium and its progeny would be 'of concern.
'In the distant future with the reprocessing of fuel from breeder
~
reactors, the fission product content of the HLW will differ slightly because of small variations in yield with fissile material (either Pu'or U-233 rather than U-235) and with neutron spectrum (thermal versus fast reactors). These effects are nat expe,cted to be great and high level . wastes from breeders are considered to be similar .to LWR wastes.
Highly Radioactive Wastes There are some highly radioactive low-level wastes from'the consne'rcial
_ ,fuelcyclewhichare.,includedinthisstudybecauseoftheirpotentialhazard during shipping. The " front end" of the fuel cycle (from mining to the reactor) generates large volumes of wastes that are generally low in radioactivity.
One exception is the present enrichment process which can concentrate certain radionuclides (notably Tc-99) when recycle, uranium is enriched. Since enrich-ment is not a licensed"6peration, it is not considered in this study. During normal operation, the reactor generates large volume ~s of low radioactivity
~ ~
waste and smal1 volumes of highly radioactive wastes. The latter are metals,.
- 2. ,
-4
- 5 such as ' control rods or instruments which have been activated by high neutron fluence in or ne,ar the,,c, ore. Recent experience has shown that accident conditions in a reactor can generate highly radioactive wastes, particularly if core' damage occurs.
Most highly radioactive wastes are generated in the fuel reprocessing plant. -In addition to high-level wastes, some secondary liquid streams and the cladding hulls can have high radioactivity concentrations. These wastes arecontaminatedwith!_triskgYEn'icnuclideswhichpresentanalpharadiation hazard together with_the beta / gamma radiation from the fission products.
The dissolution step also results in the release of some gaseous products such as Kr-85 and I-129 which, when coll.ected and concentrated, can be highly radioactive.. Some-components, notably HEPA filters, may concentrate radio-nuclides and, depending on method of waste treatment, appear as highly radio-active waste. -
.- _ r- ..
2.4 Waste' Forms Highly radioactive wastes in shipment will largely be in solid form.
By regulation (*), high level waste must be converted to a solid before shipping.
This regulation does not apply to other wastes but burial facilities currently forbid significant, quantities of liquid in the wastes they receive. This prohibition of liquids can be expected to be a part of the requirements for future burial grounds and repositories. The NRC has established criteria for acceptable methods of operating radioactive waste systems in LWR's which generally require all waste to be in solid, immobile form before shipment from the facility generating the waste II) .
'~~
(e) Ref. 5 (f) Ref. 6, p. 3-44.
,- . , , , , ,--n- - - -,y q-, ,ee-,---
p *
- m...~-. .
- 6 Waste form requirements being developed for future repositories (g.h) prohibit significant quantities of powders or sand-like particles. Wastes with particulates <an be expected to be immobilized in a solid matrix.
_The developmes of high level waste forms for DOE has been the responsibility of the Savannah River Laboratory, SRL. Most effort to date
.has been applied to forms for defense high level waste. SRL has identified borosilicate glass (i) as the-hference waste form. This waste form has received
[nuch study and is weTl cha'racterized. Acrystallineceramic(Synroc)has
~ '
rece5tly been id'eIEified by Siti.Nas the alternate waste form to borosilicate glass:. Although thes,e selectjons are for defense waste, it is believed that in the near future they will'also be appliesto comercial high level waste.
Borosilicate gl.assk),.woulicontain nominally 25 w/o commercial'high level waste oxides and Synroc(I) 10,w/o waste oxides. Borosilicate glass is used as.the reference high-level. waste form for this study. .
Metallic %stes, such_as contaminated equipment and activated com-ponents, may be suitable for disposal'with no processing other than reduction to manageable size or compaction. Other highly radioactive wastes that require treatment, such as sludges, filters, incinerator ash, pyrophoric metal chips, ion exchange media, etc., may be fixed in concrete or glass." Some organic media, such as bitumen- and polymers, are used to fix some low radioactivity wastes but do not.have as much radiation resistance for highly radioactive l wastes as inorganics. This study assumes that most low-level wastes other than large metallic components.and spent fuel hulls are fixed in a concrete matrix. Spent fuel hulls are assumed to be compacted 50 v/o to a density nominally half that of zirconium or 3.3 g/cc. An alternate waste form assumed i in one study is to mix uncompacted hulls with an equal volume of dry sand
- ' (to suppress.pyrophoricity)k The volume of hull waste in this form is included but believed to be less prdbable for shipping because of the particulate content.
! Ref. 7 Ref. 8 ~ _.
Ref. 9, p. 9 " ~
Ref. 10, p. 272 l Ref. 2, p. 6.37 -
Ref.11, p.1 (m) Ref.15, p. 4.2.2.
p.- ..._. _.
7 3.0 WASTE VOLUME DATA The pr'ofec.te'd' volume of highly radioactive waste to be shipped for the reference yeai 20007s based on an installed nuclear generating capacity ofapproximately180GW(e)(8) Capacity data to the year 2000 are shown in Table 3-1. These data are used as the basis for estimating the volume of highly radioact4ve waste to be transported. For this study highly radioactive 3
waste is defined as thTt washwith greater than 350 Ci/m3(10Ci/ft),
Spent Fuel , ,
In the year 2000; 16,000' spent fuel assemblies (4,400 MTU) are projectedtdbiiiTcTGirgedfromnuclearpowerreactorsandtherewill, bean accumulatio'n of 252,000 fuel assemblies in this country. The spent fuel dis-charge and.accumulgt.ipn data are shown in Table 3-2(b) , ,
If a fuel' cycle for tee nuclear power industry were in equilibrium operation, the annual. spent fuel discharge rate would be indicative of the annual. shipping volume. But the fuel cycle is not in equilibrium and will not be by 2000. Therefore, it is not possible to predict wit.h confidence how much spent fuel will be shipped or the type of facilities to which it will be shipped. The fuel might be shipped to a reprocessing plant, to away-
~
from-reactor storisi, or directly to a federal repository. If spent fuel is disposed of as high level waste, a federal repository is not planned to be in operation until 1997-2006(c) .. If reprocessing of spent fuel is employed, onlyoneplantcanbeexpectedtobeinoperationby2000anditscapacity(d)
~
will only be about one-third of'the an'nual discharge rate. If all discharge'd
. spent fuel is still being stored, there will need to be some shipments to away-from-reactor storage.. When a destination for spent fuel is established, the backlog of stored fuel will affect the shipping volume for several decades.
a) Ref. 3 Table 2.1..
Ref. 3, Tabli 2.2 Ref. 12, p. i Ref.13 -Table IV E3. .
, ,y - -
-- [
i i
. - 8 t
1 TABLE 3.1
SUMMARY
OF PROJECTED INSTALLED i i U.S. NUCLEAR CAPACITY (a) j
, . . . t
,t . .,_
I i
l End of Calendar- sWRl PWR, Total J Year --- " GW.(e)-
GW(e) GW(e) !
. . . _.. j 1980 '. 17.8. _..
36 5.3.8 ,
f l 1985 . 32.5 71.1 : 103.6 I
}
137.5 1990 - . 45.8 91.7 .
l al 1995 . _ .
7_
,52.0 97.4 149.4 l l 2000 61.7 '
118.0 179.7 t
i i
~
)
- i I
i
~
1 (a) Ref. 3. Tab 1E2.1. i 8
4 i . !
i
- * . . f i
t h
r
- v. - L I !
l i i
I !
. . . - , - . _ , . - , ..,..,,,,%- .- . - ~ , , - ...ww_m., ,%.,w,_..y_,r..,,w.,.,.w...y..,. ,,,,.,m-, . _ , . ,.-..p.ws,3%m.,,,,r y%,m.,. , . . ,
OF SPENT TABLE1 3.2
SUMMARY
OF PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION R FUEL TO BE ACCUMULATED THROUGH YEAR 2000 . .
Number of Assemblies '
Metric Tons Uranium
~
l
' '^
e Accumulation
^[*l ,
Accumul,ation Cal ar Year
,. l!
Boiling Water Reactors j- .
' ' 16,00b:
3',300
.; ' i 2,800 610 1 35,000- i 1980 7 '
6,200 8 , 57500 , .
l 1985 i. .1,000 '
' 8 6(200' ', E.. 65,000 ; i 12,000 l i 1990 i 1,200 8,800 104,000 -
1,700 . 19,000 .
148,000 i
r 1995 28,000 10,000 iF 2000 . g1.900 }
Pressurized Water Reactors ' .
., ; I .
1,600:. ~ . ! 9,000. "'
680 3,900 22,000 1980 9,600 3,200 i 1,400
- 5,400 i 46,000 1985 20,000 1990
.2,200- 6,100 73,000 2,500 -31,000 6,000 l -
104,000.
1995 44,000 .
2000 2,600 '
Totals 4,900 25,000 1,290 6,700 '
57,000 1980 15,800 8,700 -
2,400 11,600
' 111,000 1.985 3,400 32,000 177,000 1990 50,000 14,900 l 4,200 252,000 1995 72,000 16,000 2000 4,400 I
f 4 (a) Ref. 3. Table 2.2. s a
1 .
1
^
i
_ 10 ,
The present transportation capability (availability of spent fuel shipping casks) could not accomm,odate the. shipment of spent fuel at the present dis-charge rate, and the. expansion of this capability to meet needs in the year 2000 is un_certain$
Howeler, as a basis for this study, the uncertainties were discounted and it was: assumed that spent fuel shipping would be at the same rate as the projected rate of spent fuel discharges for the year 2000, that is 16,000 fuel assemblie.s,wi.th _4,400 MT of uranium.
e ~~~ q~
Fuel Reprocessing Wastes .--
Reprocessin'g of spe'n't fuel, will generate high . level and so'me highly radfoactive low-level wastes. The' average volumes of these waste streams are dependent upon the spent fuel throughput and can be predicted. The finer details of the waste' stream volumes and characteristics are dependent
~
on specific design details and methods of operation of a given plant.
~
It is credible that one reprocessing plant with a capacity of 5' MT/
day can be in operation by the year 2000. With dedication and effort, it is possible that additional capacity can be available by the year 2000 but at present there is no indication that will occur. As a basis for the study, however, it is assumeti that the reprocessing and transportation capacity can accommodate spent fuel at the projected discharge rate for the year 2000.
Also, it is assumiTthat a federal repository is in operation to receive the wastes generated at this reprocessing rate. Table 3.3 shows the volumes of wastes that are projected to b'e shipped from reprocessing plants during the reference year, ,
- Waste from Power Reactors ,
Large volumes of low level wastes are generat'ed by power reactors in addition to the small volume.of spent. fuel described above. 'Most of these low-level wastes arise from the cleanup of primary coolant and from normal maintenance operatio_ns. These wastes have a low radioactivity content and are not included in this study.
l
j .._____.
3 ..
b
- t. . . - .
1 - _
11 1
4 ,
~
~
TABLE 3.3 '
REPROCESSING - RIGHLY- RADI0A(a JCTIVE WASTES FRO . ,
.Kg/MTi_iM 3
.m /MTHM Ref. Volume, m 3 l,
. Waste _.
fission products 32.1
!- actinides ' '7.0 -
HLW oxides inerts 13.2 Total._ 32 7 3 .
H'LW glass - 209 0.07 306 1
~
322 O.097 430(compacted) i Hulls
- . . 322 0.32 1420 (non-l compacted) i .
.i ,
1 l
(a) Ref.15, from Tables 3.3.28; 3.3.29; 4.1.1; 4.1.4; '
and 4.2.2.
1
,i -
i
" . me e g i .
i
(
e T * . e.,
i j -
e l
_ . . _ . - . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . - . _ . - __ . _ _ . _ , _ _ . _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ , . _ - - .~_ . . , , , _ . , _ _ . , . _ . _ , _ _ _ . .
,.+ " . 2 : 2 :: . -.
~
- : == -- - ~ ~ ~
' - 12 ..
The identified highly radioactive wastes from normal operations are expended non-fuel, core .c,omponents which are activated by extended neutron exposure. These incl-ude control rods, instruments, flow channels, poison curtains, etc.
These components require disposal on an irregular basis and It has may be shipped in containers with other wastes of low radioactivity.
3 been estimated (") that 1 m3 (35 ft ) of core component waste will be genera.ted 3 in the year 2000.
per GW(e)-yr, of- 180 m The most hiih.Ty"PadidactiN wastes can be produced by of'f-norma.1 conditions in .a. power.re_ actor. -The experience from TMI-2 shows tha,t large volume's of waste can be expected.from reactor accidents in which 3 some , core damage occurs.' It is projected (b) that'as much is' 20,000 ft gf zeofites, 3
resins, and. sludges,wiAh 350 Ci/ft will b'e generated by cleariup of water The; shipment of from the primary coolant system and containment of TMI-2.
reactor cleanup wastes cannot be predicted.in the future, but the 1,arge volumes of wistes resulting from accidents suggests consideration of these wastes in the study.
Wastes from Other Fuel Cycle Facilities -
All comercial facilities in the nuclear power fuel cycle can be These wastes are generally low-expected to generate radioactive wastes.
specific-activity w'astes and no highly radioactive wastes have been identifi with other elements of the fuel cycle.
Decontamination and Decomissioning Wastes ,, ,
The decontamination of fuel cycle facilities which have reached the roduce significant volumes of low-level wastes.
end of their useful lives will .
The highly radioactive wastes (cidentified from decontaminating plants being routine operating lives are wastes from power reactors.
decomissioned after A recent study shows that decommissioning a 1155 MW(e) BWR would acuerate l
a Ref. 4, p. D-23 b Ref.14, from Tables 5.4-2, 6.3-3, and 7.3-1.
c Ref.4,Tible0.34(whichcitesRefs.15and'16).
s -- -.. . .- - . . . - . . . . - - - . . . - . . _ .
, ,' s . --
+
13 138 m 3 of activated metal components with 350 Ci/ft3 . A similar study 3 3 3 reports 418 m of activated metal., 30 m of spent resins, and 9 m of filter 3
cartridges, all 350 - Ci t , would arise from decommissioning a 1175 Mw(e) pWR. _ .
prior to the year 2000, the reactors decommissioned will be smaller and shorter-lived than those in the above studies. If the estimated life of a reactor of-40 years is valid,-more of these wastes can be expected to be generated beginniniCiftirr'20TO.-
[ .
4.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH RADIOACTIVE WASTES - .
- . ~ , - -
For evaluating the effects of exposure to humans from the malevolent dispersal wastes duri. rig shipping the important properties of the wdste are mechanical properties and radionuclide concentration. This section presents those properties available from the literature for the wastes predicted to be shipped in the year 2000. Because of the uncertainties in the nuclear fuel cycle to be employed, optional nuclide contents are given for other potential major waste types.
4.1 Spent Fuel Spent fuel will be shipped primarily as whole fuel assemblies.
The characteristics of typical' LWR fuel assemblies are given in Table 4.1.
The radionuclide content of sp_ent fuel,during shipping is dependent upon th,e time interval of shipping after discharge and the fuel cycle employed. It
_ is assume.d that spent fuel js shipped at two times. It may be shipped 6 months after discharge to a fuel reprocessing plant or to storage away from the reactor, and it may be shipped after about 6 years from away-from-reactor storage to a spent fuel packaging facility for disposal or to a reprocessing plant. Table 4.2 gives radionuclide content of spent fuel from a once-thro' ugh cycle and from U-pu recycle for average LWR spent fuel (") appearjng early in ihe next century. The radionuclides are grouped as ~
~
fission products, actinides, and activated hardware.
(a) Ref. 15. Table 3.3.2.
.. A m ~
14 - -
TABLE 4,1 CHARACTERISTICS
..FUELASSEMBLIES(O(UNIRRADIATEDLWR ,
ai
. '__~"#~~~~ ,. , ,;
Overall assembly length m' -
- . 4.059 4.470 Cross section, cm
.. -21.4 x 21.4. . 13.9 x 13.9 Fuel element lengtha.,m_ 3.851 4.064 Active fuel.41eight, m . . 3.658 .
3.759 Fuel element 0D . cm, _ _
0.950 .1.252.
Fuel element array ' 17 x 17 8x8 Assembly total weight,' kg 668.6 279 Uranium / Assembly, kg 461.4 -.188.7 ,
M0 / Assembly, kg - 523.4 214.1 2
Zircaloy/ Assembly,kg -
129.7 56.7 Hardware / Assembly,kg 15.5 8.2 Total metal / Assembly, kg 145.2 64.9
- '(a) ~' '
Ref.-2 -Table 2.2. ,
- e. e 4
f r
l l
y . ... - . .-.
j 15 l
TABLE 4.T SIGNIFICANT RADIONUCt.lDES IN SPENT FUEL FOR
-- TWO SHIPPING TIMES (a) ,
Fission Products. C1/MTHM U Pu Recycle Once-Throuch Cvele 0.5 yr 6.5 yr 0.5 yr= 6.5 yr Ise:eee
' .. ,4.4 x E2 3.1 x E2 4.5 x E2 3.2 x E2 H-3 9.5 m.-E3 6.5 x E3 8.9 x E3 6.1 x E3 Kr-85 5.5 x E4 1.1 x E-8 5.3 x E4 1.1 x E-8
- Sr-89 6.7 x E4 '.8 5 x E4 6.2 x E4 5.8 x E4
$r-90 6.7 x E4 ' ' 5.'8 x E4 6.2 x E4 5.4 x E4 Y-90 9.5 x E4 5.8 x E-7 9.3 x E4 5.6 x E-7 Y-91 1.7 1.7. 1.6 1.6 Zr-93~
1.TxES--- - - 1.2 x E-5 1.7 x E5 1.2 x E-5 Zr-95 Nb-95m 36 x E3 I2.6 x E-7' 3.6 x E3 2.6 x E-7
~~
Nb-95
-3.}-x E5, 2.7 x E-5 3.3 x E5 2.7 x E-5 1.3 x El Tc-99 1.3 x El ,1.3 x El 1.3 x El Ru-103 4.3 x E4 9.5 x E-13 4.4 x E4 -
Ru-106 3.4 x ES 5.-3 x E3 3.7 x ES 5.9 x E3
- Rh-10 % '" 4 3 x E4 9.5 x E-13 4.4 x E4 -
,1h-106 3.,4 x E5 5.3 x E3 3.7 x ES 5.9 x E3 4.4 2.2 x E3, 5.5 Ag-110m ,1 8 x E3
,Ag-110 _ 2,.3 x E2 5.7 x E-1 2.9 x E2 7.1 x E-1 Cd-113m ~ 1.2 x E1 -6.2 1.1 x El 8.1
-11cm 8.6 2.0 x E*2 9.1 2.1 x E-2
- Sn-123 2 7 x E3 1.4 x E-2 2.9 x E3 1.5 x E-2 Sb-124 4.3 x El 4.4 x E-10 4.8 x E1 Sb-125 6.8 x E3 1.4 x E3 7.6 x E3 1.6 x E3 Te-125m 2.8 x E3 6.0 x ,E2 3.1 x E3 6.8'x E2 Te-127m 4.2 x E3 3.8 x E-3 4.4 x E3 3.9 x E-3 Te-127 472xE3 3.7 x E-3 4.4 x E3 3.9 x E-3 Cs-134 ,,,1.7 x E5 2.2 x E4 1.7 x ES 2.2 x E4 Cs-137 9.4 x E4 8.2 x E4 9.5 x E4 8.3 x E4 Ba-137m 8.8 x E4 7.8 x E4 8.9 x E4 7.7 x E4 Ce-141 2.4 x E4 1.1 x E-16 2.4 x E4 -
Ce-144 6.1 x ES 2.9 x E3 5.9 x E5 2.8 x E3 Pr-144 6.1 x ES 2.9 x E3 5.9 x E5 2.8 x E3 Pm-147 9.0 x E4 1.9 x E4' 9.0 x E4 1.8 x E4' Pm-148m 1.7 x E3 3.4 x E-13 1.8 x E3 -
_.- , Pm-148 1.4 x E2 , 2.7 x E-14 1.5 x E2 -
Sm-151 1.2 x E3. 1.1 x E3 1.2 x E3 1.2 x E3 Eu-152 1.3 x E1 9.0 1.7 x El 1.2 x El Eu-154 5.8 x E3 4.4 x E3 6.4 x E3 '4.9 x,E3 Eu-155 5.7 x E3 5.7 x E2 6.2 x E3 6.2 x E2 Gd-153 1.9 x El 3.5 x E-2 1.7 x El 3.2 x E-2 Tb-160 1.E x E2 1.2 x E-7 2.1 x E2 1.5 x E-7
~
TOTAL 3.3 x E6 3.5 x ES 3.3 x E6 3.4 x ES
- Time after discharge from reactor.
- (a) Ref. 15. Tables 3.3.6; 3.3.7; 3.3.8; 3.3.9; 3.3.10; and 3.3.15.
eSMM7.9 '.i+TTMM2/if.Lagmaxd?QE-- ,sa-am _ -i%_ _g _grWg
,y,--..-_~-.~...- -- . - - . . - ---
o
.. . 16
~ -
TABLE 4.2 (Continued)
Actinides. Ci/MTHM Once-Through Cycle- U-Pu Recycle 0.5 yr 6.5 yr 0.5 yr 6.5 yr Isotete U-237 _"~ ~ 2.8 2.1 4.6 3.5 '
, Np-239 1.4 x El 1.4 x El 4.7 x El 4.7 x El
~
Pu-238 2.1'x E3 2.ixE3 5.4 x E3 5.4 x E3 Pu-239 2.9 x E2 - 2.9 x E2 3.6 x E2 3.6 x E2 Pu-240 4.5 x E2 4.5 x E2 7.3 x E2 7.4 x E2 Pu-241 1.1 x'E5 8.4 x E4 1.8 x E5 1.4 x E5 Pu-242 . h6 ____ 1.6 ; 3.9 3.9 Am-241.: , -2.0 x E2 1.1 x E3 4.2 x E2 2.0 x E3 Am-242m - 1.1 x E1 - 1.0xEl 4.9 x El 4.8 x El Am-242 1.1 x El 1.0.x El 4.9 x El 4.8 x El
~
Am-243: 51.4:x El 1.4 x El 4.7 x El 4.7 x El Cm-242 1.7 x E4 1.0 x El 4.7 x E4 4.3 x El
- Cm-213- s .- A.0 3.5 9.9 8.7 Cm-244 1.3 x E3 1.0 x E3 7.4 x 13 5.9 x E3
~
Cm-245 f.8 x E-1 1.8 x E-1 1.8 1.8 TOTAL 'l.3xES- ' 8.9 x E4 2.4 x ES 1.0 x ES Act vated Metals. C1/MTHM
. Mn-54 ,3.0 x E2 2.0 Fe-55 6.1 x E3 1.0 x E3 Co-58 2.0 x E3 1.0 x E-6 Co-60 5.2 x E3 2.0 x E3 --
N1-59 3.0 3.0 Same as Ni-63 4.0 x E2 4.0 x E2 Once-Through In-65 2.0 x El 4.0 x E-2
~~
Zr-95 4.0 x E3 3.0 x E-7 Nb-93m 9.0 x E3 3.0 x E-2 Nb-95 7.0 x E3 6.0 x E-7 Cd-133m 4.0 2.0 Sb-125 4.0 x El 8.0 Te-125m 2.0 x El 3.0 TOTAL 2.4 x E4 3.5 x ES e
e e
T .--
17-
- 4.2 Wastes from Reprocessing Plant t
i High Level Waste _ ...
The high level waste is assumed'to be solidified in borosilicate glass with 25 w/o waste oxides and a density of 3.0 g/cc. This form results in 209 kg or 0.07 m3 of vitrified waste per MTHM reprocessed.
'~~
Some impact [. test,ing.(,8) of simulated borosilicate glass waste in stainless steel canisters showed that at an-impact velocity of 7.6 m/sec
! l x 10-3 w/o of, glass fines 410 mm were produced; at 36 m/sec 2 w/o fines
' ~
were produced.
I Tbe radionuclide content of the'high level waste can be calculated from the she'ntieT'cTmposition given in Table 4.2. High level waste will
- contain the'same solid' fission products as. spent fuel. It will contain no Because reprocessing removes j significant_ amounts 5[gaseousfissionproducts.
99tb) percent of the U and Pu, iiLW will contain only one percent of the U and Pu l
- found in spent fuel. _However, the other actinides in spent fuel will not be removed by normal reprocessing and will be in the HLW. Activated metals listed in Table 4.2 will not be incorporated into HLW. It should be.noted that when I
reprocessing does begin, much of the fuel being processed will have been stored ,
l more than 6.5 years. In that case, one would expect to see higher concentrations of plutonium progdi19 and lower concentrations of fission products. It may be i
desirable to account for further decay of those nuclides which dominate the
~
health effects.
If high level wastes were solidified in Synroc (density 4.2 g/cc(C)) ' '
~
I with10w/owaste,theradionuclidesp'rMTHM(withcorrectionsindicatedabove)e 3
.wouldbecontainedin523kg(0.12m)ofSynroc.
t The available impact data for Synroc cannot be readily compared with that of glass. The. data reported (d) show that 2 w/o fines (s10 um) are ,
3 produced by an impact of 217 J/1.53 cm ,
(
Ref.16. Table-7.T a))
b Ref. 15, p. 3.3.10 i
! ')l 'Ref. 11,Table Ref. 16. p. 103.1.
- l
.~ ..
( .
1
._ . l 18 -
~ Cladding Hulls The radioactivity in c1 adding hulls results from neutron activation i
of the structural-metalsend fission produr-ts from uranium containation on and in the cladding. The typical (a) radionuclide content of cladding hulls can be represented by the list of activated metals plus 0.5 percent of the
-fission products,in Tabl.a 4.2. The values of nuclide concentrations taken at 6.5 years after discharSt pe.mcit representa~tive ~of those in 322 Kg of ,
hulls and hardware. ,~.. ~~
Other Reprocessing Wa'stEi I-i r.--
Other-Waster-from the reprocessin'g of spent fuel with high levels of radioactivity can ariie from waste treaf. ment processes which concentrate the radionuclides. ,0'FE waste form is presented which meets the study's l ,
definition of highly radioactive waste,. This waste results from the fixation l in concrete of ash from the intermediate-level incinerator and of intermed level wet solids. The typical radionuclide content is given in Table 4.3.
i This waste is placed into 220L drums and shipped in a Type B .overpack.
4.3 High19 Radioactive Wastes from Power Plants The principal highly radioactive wastes from normal reactor operations are neutron activated internal reactor components. The gross specific activity 3
The nuclide of this waste is estimated to be 4000 Ci/m3(113Ci/ft)(b) .
f concentration in this waste is~given in Table 4.4.
The early experience and predicted characteristics of future wastec l
- 'from TMI-2 afe indicative of' highly radioactive wastes to result- from off- .
i
- normal reactor operations. The largest volume of wastes occurs from the decontamination of. water from the primary coolant system and wate'r spilled l
into the primary containment and auxiliary buildingfi The wastes from decon-l taminationareprimarJ1yzeoliteororganicresinionexchangemediaand l The i
evaporation sludges in which the radionuclides have been concentrated.
I .
!' (a) Ref.15, p. 4.2.1 Ref. 4. p. D-23.
i (b)
y ' '
~
19 TABLE 4.3 RADI0 ACTIVITY IN AN INTGRM
-- WASTE FIXED IN CONCRETEta)EDIATE-LEVEL
~
- a. - .
- a.-
e- - 3
, - Radionuclide Ci/m
_7-._
. Sr-90/Y-90 . 5 Zr-95/Nb-95 - -: 41 Ru-106/Rh-106 1.'430 Cs-134/Cs-137/Ba-137m 12 Ce-144/Pr-144 -
19
.- .r-_
- Other fission prod.' ,
, 4
~
Pu-239 <
1.5 Pu-241 .
, . 690. ,
s Other Pu -
24
~
Other actinides .
0.1 _
--- Other activation prod. ,.
1.5 '. - .
2.-
3 2 ,' 2231 (63 Ci/ft )
k (a)e Calculated from data in Ref.15, .
Tables 4.7.2; 4.7.18.
-. s i ..
' ~
l t ,
,i*
~
l ,
1
,- e t . s s. .
s
. a .: g.
.,7. . ..
l
. l 20 !
TABLE-. 4.4 . PRINCIPAL RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATION IN REACTOR COMPONENT WASTE ta) .
~
3
- Nuclide Curies /m .
j
. C-1.4 -
2.59 x 10~1 Fe-55 2.23 x 10 3 7
~
- _ _ . - , - N._i - 59 1.40
- Co-60 1.60 x 10 3
. _ N1.-63 2.09 x 10 2 Mb-94 '8.19 x 10-3 da) Ref. 4, p. D-34.
8 N
. e. O ech a
. ..~~~
~
a A -.. >
i /. 6, ,
- . [.~ <
j I.
i; y- i.21 I I l 3 , 7., .
. .. c. L,,,,
n
' - ])
'N q/ _.
zeoliteri in demineralizer cartridges wi1-1--have the' highest concertttation with 3
initial projections showing up to.,1400-Ci/ft (a) LaterexperiencehoEever
- - - 1.
Iv.t. -' .
3 s
has shown a zeolite cartridge loaded up to 26,000 Ci (2600 Ci/ft ) with ~ r .' '- --
expectatio.n of going to 62;000 Ci (6200 1/ft ) if-radiation levels..during 3
'. 'r handl-ing-and shipping _yill' aHow. These demineralizer cartridges form the container for the zeolites for transport within a shipping cask. The excess water is removeti from the demineralizar cartridge but no concrete or other ,
fixing ' agent is planried.""Tirs in the zeolites 3 a , 35000 o c Cir;'ofw radioactivi
- . tv .s~ t s ( it ti ,
is estimatedgy to.,be Qom-25,000-C - Cs-1 and 1,000-Ci of Sr-90. Lesser amounts of other.fiss. ion products are indicated by data. characterizing the
~7,5 M '/. i c( IP{l5 2
primary water contardinants 's'hown in Tab 1CM
~
W:i,C*.,.. ;,
3.4 Wastes from Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities Table'4'.6'gives the volumes and radioactivity at shutdown of components from a 3320 MW(t) BRW and from a 3500 MW(t) PWR. Because of the short half-life' of trany of the nuclides, over 95 percent of the radioactivity results from the following(c):
Radionuclide .
Hal f-1.i fe , 'yr . % of Total Activity Co-58 '
0.2 5 Fe-55 -
2.7 44 Co-60 5.27 43 Ni-63 100.0 ,4 The activities given in Table 4.6 will ~ diminish.~ before shipping. If shi i occurs 10 years after shutdown, the total activity will be ,18 gf percen the total reported value at shutdown; in 30 years it will be about 4 percent
- - of the total- valu7. - - -
The total volumei reported in Table 4.6 are for packaged wastes.
The reactor components will be reduced in size to allow packaging for ship-ment and.can be considered as large, variously-shaped, metallic waste form with the mechanical pro.perties of steel.
-- -- q ,. --
N ~~I,-
(a) Ref 14, Table 5.4-2. ~
1b)~Ref'. ~1T;'-% . '
l t
c Ref.18. Table 7.3-2.
d Ref.18. Table 7.3-3. l l
l
--v +-- , w- -y,- ~. wm- ~yg- -m
~. --
22 TIBLE 4.5 ESTIMATED CONCENTRATIONS OF PRINCIPAL
. ~ SYSTEM CONTAMINANTS AS OF ARIL 28, IN 1980 THE a PRIMARY (WA)TER i -
.; ,1 .. ;
Material / Concentration f._' "= -~::~ .. . . j' i
.JCi/mL- ..
.. y
. . . . . 2
.g, =. : : -
. . y.- Q g .
.q .
T' M k' Cs-137 ; J .~ % 4-*==
.8 - . 6- -
T
\"C k ,,.,.
'1 . -l Cs-134 7 C.( CeV ~ ,
_ ,g, Sr-89 i 9 - '
' 0'M,,\t Sr-90 \
- 5 Zr-9'S
~
\ b 5 x 10-4 5'
\
Nb-95 8 x 10-4 Ru-106 - s 1 x 10-I Sb-125 _. 4 x 10-3 s
Te-125m '6 x 10-3 Te-127m
\
3 10~i Te-129m - - -
1x 0-3 - .
Ce-144 .
2 3x1\
Co-58' -
2 x 10~
TOTAL 85.6 -
N l'-
~
P3
~
(a f 4 be7 2. C, C
.~
a jy, c_ ar, vat d ouv.cd i; ,
\ '.m i 051 b -lV UR G f( -G{0 )'
- p. 7 - 7 rea 7.,7 _
- c. c l. . - ,
A. 2- i
~. .
~~
23 TABLE 4.6 VOLUMES AND ACTIVITIES QF DECOMMISSIONED
, L@ ACTIVATED METALS (a)
~
Disposal Specific Volume Activity Activity Component (m3 )* Ci (Ci/m3 )
""~
Reference BW' Ri~ "r Steam separator- assemb1'y 10 9,600 960 Fuel support. pieces .
5 700 140 Control rods and in-core -
' . ins'truments _
15 189,000 12,600 Control . cod . guide tubes 4 100 25 Jet pump assemblies 14 20,000 1,429 Top' fuel guide 24 30,100 1,254
. Core support-plate 11 650 59 Core shroud- - 47 6,300,000 134,043 Reactor vessel wall 8 2,160 46
. Total .
138 6,552,310 Reference PWR:
Pressure vessel -
cylindrical _ wall 108 19,170 178 Vessel head 57 <10 .18 Vessel bottom 57 <10 .18 Upper core 11 <10 .91 Support assembly Upper support columns 11 <100 9.1 Upper core barrel 6 <1,000 167 Upper core grid plate 14 24,310 1,736 Guide tubes 17 <100 ~6 Lower core barrel 91 651,000 7,154
, Thermal shields 17 146,100 8,594 Core' shroud ~ '
11' 3,431,100 311,909 Lower grid plate ~
14 553,400 39,529 Lower support columns 3 10,000 333 Lower core forging 31 2,500 ~81 M,iscellaneous internals 23 2,000 87 Reactor cavity liner 15 <10 .7 Total 485 4,841,320 l
l
" Disposal volumes include the disposal container after the activated metal components have been cut into manageable pieces. .
l (a) E '. 4. Tahle 44.
- . 24 5.0 '
SUMMARY
This report- presents projected volumes and characteristics of highly radtoactive wastes to be shipped ic the United States in the reference year 2000. These data are for Ese in subsequent tasks on this project to provide the NRC with,infonnation on,the potential human effects from the j
~
'malevo{intdispersalofwistes.. ,
In order idlaciTttaie subsdquent ' task efforts an objective of this tas'k was to. identify a f5G Iwisti types which would.be r.epres'intatile r: -
of the'ma'ny types 'of 'wistes 'to 'bg sMpped in the future. Thi' data were '
seiected from a feW report 5 after'dvaltiation 'of a large number of references, most of which were.-dublishdd in thi last 5 years. The data are presente'd in a consistent form to.make them more useful in subsequent tasks.
8 y e
8-e e
- ee g
- m e 9
" * . .- . p G
- . __ ~
I l
25 l REFERENCES, j (1) "Nuc. lear Energy Policy", Civiak,'R., Smith, M. S., Behrens, C., l i
Donnelly, W. H., Congressional Research Service, Issue Brief No.
1878005, October, 1981. . . .
(2) " Alternatives.'for Managing Wastes 'from Reactors and Post-Fission ;
Operations in the LW'N Fuel ' Cycle,)Voi 1, Sumary: Alternatives for the Back of the LWR Fuel Cycle Types and Properties of LWR Fuel Cycle Wastes", Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, ERDA-76-43, May, 1976.
(3) " Spent Fuel _and Radioactive Waste' Inventories and Projections as of December 31, 1980", U.S. Department of Energy, DOE /NE-0017, September, 1981. ' ~ " r- !
I
, (4) " Environmental-Impact Statentent on 10 CFR Part 61 ' Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive' Waste' Appendices A-F", US Nuclear Regulatory Comis'sion, NUREG-0782, September,1981.
(5) - Title 10, _C_ ode. o.f, Federal Regulations. Part 50, Appendix F, US Nuclear i Regulatory Comission, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
(6) "A Waste Inventory- Report for P.eactor and Fuel-Fabrication Facility .
Wastes",Phillips,J.,Feizollahi,F.,Martineit,R.,Berl,W.,Stouky, R., .0ffice of Nuclear Waste-Isolation, ONWI-20 NUS-3314, March,1979.
(7) "NWTS- Program Criteria for Mined Geologic Disposal of Nuclear Waste-Waste Package Perfonnance Criteria", Depa'ctment of Eneroy, Washington, D.C., Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-NWTS-33(4i, Draft, May, 1981. ,
(8) " Report of the Steering Committee on TRU Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant". Ed., Irby, H. H., Westinghouse Electric Corporation, WIPP-DOE-069, May, 1980. -
(9) " Description of DWPF Reference Waste Form and Canister, Long Term Design Liaison: Waste Management Programs", Baxter, R. G., E. I. .
du Pont de Nemours Co., DP-1606, June, 1981.
~
(10) " Proceedings of the 1981 National Waste Terminal Storage Program Information Meeting", U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NWTS
. Integration, Battelle Project Management Division, DOE /NWTS-15, November,1981. ,
(11) " Mechanical and Thermophysical Properties of Hot-Pressed SYNROC B",
Hoenig, C. L. , Newkirk, H. W. , Otto, R. A. , Brady, R. L. , Brown, A. E. ,
Ulrich, A. R., Lum, R. C., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-53143, May 6,1981. l (12) " Proceedings o?$e 1980 National Waste Terminal Storage Program !
Information Meeting", U.S. Department of Energy NWTS Program Office, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-212, December,1980.
).
. - - 26 ,
(13) " Final Generic Environmental Statement'onthe Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed 0xide Fuel in Light Water Cooled Reactors, Vol. 3" NRC, Office of Nuclear #aterial Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0002, August, 1976-..
"Draf-t \ P ograbatic , Environmental Impact Statement related'fo decon-(14) taminatibnd disposal of radioactive wastes restIlting from March 28, g 1979, accident h ree tile Island Nuc, lear-S'titio'n, linit 2", MetropolitanV dG
~
Edison Company, Jersey Cen Pofer'and L.igh't Company, Pennsylvania l4cc Electric Company, US Juc4 r egulittory Commission, Office of Nuclear & ppg Reactor Regulati g....NjgEG,-0683, JuTy N 980.
S
" Technology for CommerciaLRadioactive Waste Management", Battelle I (15)
Pacific Northkeit T.aboratories DOE /ET-0028, May, 1979.
(16) "A State-of-the-Art Review of Materials Properties of Nuclear Waste Forms" Mendel, J. E. , Nelson, R. D. , Turcotte, R. P. , Gray, W. J. ,
Merz, t M. -De;-Roberts , F. P. , Weber, W. J. , Westsik, J . H. , Jr. ,
Clark u D. E., Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, PNL-3802, ,
April, 1981. j ,9j y g g . , 77,p 3,y , ,
f (17) " Weekly Information RepoN 2W eek' En' ding-0'ctober 16, 1981", Rehm, T. A.,
~
' Nuclear Re'gulatori CodmissTon, Offi'cii of the' EDO, October,'1981. '
(18) "Tec~hnology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station", Smith, R. I. , Konzer, G. J., Kennedy, W. E. ,
Jr., Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, NUREG/CR-0130, June,.1978.
(19) " Technology, Safity and Costs of Decomissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power. Station, Oak, H. D., et al., Battelle, Pacific Northwest LabTratories for NRC, NUREG/CR-0672, June,1980.
- em ,
. .. . 1 es j .
l i
- -- - - -- -- -